Mermelstein v. Able Bus, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mermelstein v. Able Bus, Inc.

69 A.D.3d 687, 891 N.Y.2d 657

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 12, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.3d 687 (Mermelstein v. Able Bus, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mermelstein v. Able Bus, Inc., 69 A.D.3d 687, 891 N.Y.2d 657 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

A vehicle operated by the defendant Jorge M. Vega and owned by the defendant Able Bus, Inc. (hereinafter Able), collided with a vehicle owned and operated by the plaintiff at the intersection of Avenue J and East 3rd Street in Brooklyn. The defendant driver was traveling on East 3rd Street, which is governed by a stop sign at its intersection with Avenue J. The plaintiff was traveling on Avenue J, which is not governed by a traffic control signal at its intersection with East 3rd Street.

The plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Although the defendant driver’s direction of travel was governed by a stop sign, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff was free from negligence (see Virzi v Fraser, 51 AD3d 784 [2008]; Campbell-Lopez v Cruz, 31 AD3d 475 [2006]; Hernandez v Bestway Beer & Soda Distrib., 301 AD2d 381 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against Able and the defendant driver. Santucci, J.E, Balkin, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

A vehicle operated by the defendant Jorge M. Vega and owned by the defendant Able Bus, Inc. (hereinafter Able), collided with a vehicle owned and operated by the plaintiff at the intersection of Avenue J and East 3rd Street in Brooklyn. The defendant driver was traveling on East 3rd Street, which is governed by a stop sign at its intersection with Avenue J. The plaintiff was traveling on Avenue J, which is not governed by a traffic control signal at its intersection with East 3rd Street.

The plaintiff failed to submit evidence sufficient to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). Although the defendant driver’s direction of travel was governed by a stop sign, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff was free from negligence (see Virzi v Fraser, 51 AD3d 784 [2008]; Campbell-Lopez v Cruz, 31 AD3d 475 [2006]; Hernandez v Bestway Beer & Soda Distrib., 301 AD2d 381 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against Able and the defendant driver. Santucci, J.E, Balkin, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 687, 891 N.Y.2d 657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mermelstein-v-able-bus-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack